Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
R. Jayapal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2010
Decided on : 09-08-2019
(a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 232 – Acquittal – Acquittal of co-accused per se is not sufficient to result in acquittal of other accused – Court ought to examine entire prosecution evidence in its correct perspective before it could conclude on effect of acquittal of one accused on other in facts and circumstance of given case. (Para 13)
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – Chronology or sequence of actions of accused persons had occurred slightly different in different testimonies but those inconsistencies, as such, may not be of material bearing if witnesses are otherwise found reliable and trustworthy – However, significant part of matter is that such accounts by witnesses stand disbelieved in relation to accused No. 2 and accused No. 3, both of whom stand acquitted – When accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 are removed out of scene, entire complexion of prosecution story is altered on material aspects and such an alteration cannot be ignored as being wholly immaterial or irrelevant – Exercise of sifting grain from chaff in this matter would shake, rather annihilate, fundamentals of prosecution case; and an entirely new prosecution story shall have to be assumed that when deceased was walking down the lane, appellant alone jumped on him; gave him a blow; threw weapon towards his own house and ran away – However, it cannot be held that appellant was not involved in the occurrence or did not kill deceased, essentially for reason that appellant himself took defence that he assaulted deceased in exercise of his right of private defence when deceased allegedly intruded inside his house and attempted to assault and molest his wife – Prosecution case stood corroborated by evidence of Medical Officer – In given circumstances, likelihood of deceased who was on inimical terms with wife of appellant, having given reasons for provocation by way of aggression or attempted intrusion into house of appellant is not ruled out – Incident in question took place without any premeditation, in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when deceased attempted entry into his house – Appellant did neither take any undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC is altered to one under Part-I of Section 304 IPC and appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years. (Paras 14 to 18, 20 and 21)
Facts of the Case:
Accused-appellant has called in question the judgment and order dated 21.02.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 2000 whereby, High Court of Judicature at Madras has affirmed his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code even while acquitting accused No. 2 for offence under Section 302/34 IPC in modification of judgment and order dated 27.06.2000 as passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Sessions Case.
Findings of Court:
In given set of fact, circumstances and doubts, preponderance leans towards the probability that occurrence took place just at the door-step of house of appellant; and likelihood of deceased, who was on inimical terms with wife of appellant, having given reasons for provocation, by way of aggression or attempted intrusion into the house of the appellant, is not ruled out altogether.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. In this appeal, the accused-appellant has called in question the judgment and order dated 21.02.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 2000 whereby, the High Court of Judicature at Madras has affirmed his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), even while acquitting the accused No. 2 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC in modification of the judgment and order dated 27.06.2000 as passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Sessions Case No. 168 of 1999.
1.1. In the Sessions Case aforesaid, the accused-appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC whereas the appellant’s brother (accused No. 2) was charged for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and the appellant’s wife (accused No. 3) was charged for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 341 IPC. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded him the punishment of life imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulations; and also convicted the appellant’s brother (accused No. 2) for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and awarded him the same punishment of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulations. However, the Trial Court found the appellant’s wife (accused No. 3) not guilty of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 341 IPC and she was, accordingly, acquitted. In appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant but found the accused No. 2 not guilty and he was, accordingly, acquitted.
2. The basic question calling for determination in this appeal is as to whether, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the High Court was justified in maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC?
3. The background aspects of the case, so far relevant for the question at hand, could be noticed, in brief, as follows:
3.1. The prosecution case had been that the deceased Poondhaisezhiyan and wife of the appellant, Smt. Jayaseeli (who was accused No. 3 in this case) carried a long-drawn rivalry because of the elections of Town Panchayat where the deceased was instrumental in getting another candidate elected as President and thereafter, himself got elected as Vice-president by defeating the accused No. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused No. 3 made a complaint against the deceased that was enquired into and was found to be false; and this failure of complaint had enraged the accused persons. It was alleged that on 23.08.1997 at about 5.00 p.m., the appellant R. Jayapal (accused No. 1) along with his wife (accused No. 3) had had an altercation with the deceased in front of his house when the appellant vowed to finish off the deceased within 24 hours. It was further alleged that the same day at about 7.15 p.m., when the deceased left his house in order to visit Thanjavur and was crossing the lane in front of the house of the appellant, the appellant came down with a spike, the accused No. 2 came with a sickle, and the accused No. 3 came unarmed; the accused No. 2 (brother of the appellant) attacked the deceased with sickle but his blow was blocked by the deceased; the deceased attempted to run away but was ambushed by the accused No. 3 and she exhorted not to spare the deceased; and then, the appellant stabbed the deceased on chest with the spike. This incident was allegedly witnessed by PW-1 Pandian, brother of the deceased who carried the deceased to hospital and on whose statement, FIR was registered as per the report made by PW-12 Head Constable Jaganathan. The relevant parts of FIR could be usefully extracted as follows:-
“…….Today on 23.08.97, at 5 p.m. my brother was in his house. When I returned from bazaar, there were shouting. When I went near I saw my brother Poondaichelian, Jayaseeli and Jayapal were arguing. Then my brother Poondaichelian told Jayaseeli that was sending false complaint against him and she was talking ill of h
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
